We did it without telling anyone. About half of all healthcare spending comes from Governments. Another 20% is from businesses, and that is overwhelmingly regulated and required by Governments (meaning - they aren't directly spending it but forcing it to be spent). So about 30% is left for consumers. Meaning - the vast majority of healthcare spending is driven by Government. That's a socialized system.
It regulates maximum sensitivity of a passive headphone - and maximum SPL for a wireless headphone (or any headphone in wireless mode). It's only required in France right now - recommended in the rest of the EU, and ignored in the rest of the world. It also sets the max SPL at 100 dB.
Or consider it this way. Tax laws are such that it is CHEAPER TO BORROW MONEY than to repatriate the cash.
Borrowing billions of dollars at 5% costs LESS than bringing in a billion dollars.
That right there is indicative that our business tax laws are pretty messed up. The problem of having the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world - nearly double that of the OECD average - is a situation that will hopefully be resolved in the next year to the betterment of ALL US companies.
Well, to be accurate, the debt of $50 billion is about 18 months of profit, at Q4 2016's $9 billion in earnings rate. When paying back loans, it's earnings that matter, not revenue. Unless you want to stiff suppliers and employees and such...
Unfortunately, true. Also interesting to note that journalism as a whole is sexist (many more males than females), racist (declining and way under-representative of minorities), and opposed to equal pay for equal work. So while they tend to champion such things as equality for all in theory - they really don't carry through in actions.
Cool, so we can say more than 1,100 jobs were saved with the maintaining and expanding of the Carrier factory in Indiana as well, then! So now we can say that Trump has already saved 6,800 jobs (using the same ratio of direct-to-indirect jobs saved as for the GM calculation). So around $100 per year per job saved - that's a massive return on investment!
Again - it's the participation RATE. That's a percentage. I know it's hard to understand - but if there are 100 workers, and 90 have jobs, then the unemployment rate is 10%. If we add 20 more people to the mix, and still have 90 jobs, we have a 25% unemployment rate. If 20 of the 30 that were unemployed are now off of unemployment, and we still have 90 jobs, we now have an unemployment rate of 10% again - but we actually have 20 also no longer "counted". So we have 30 people without jobs, but only "officially" have 10 without jobs. That's why the labor force participation rate matters - not just the unemployment rate.
GM lost $11 billion for the US Government. Hardly a "win". And that was direct cash just given out, not a reduction in taxes paid to the State. And there were about 243,000 employees at GM at the time, not 1.5 million. You really do like lying a lot, don't you?
Which is why you want to look at the Labor Force Participation RATE - it's a percentage, not an absolute. That has steadily decreased. Fewer people are working, but those who have not completely given up (and thus are no longer considered from an unemployment rate standpoint) are finally finding jobs.
The average wage of the jobs being discussed is $35,000. That's $1,000 per year to Indiana, $5300 to the Federal SSI/FICA per year, and about $3,000 per year for Federal income tax. So a total of $9300 to various Governments in taxation on that income. What did it cost to keep those $1,100 jobs? $640 per job, per year. So here's where it comes down:
1. Jobs go away. Governments lose $9,300 per year per job in direct taxation, additional losses due to less economic activity (1,100 income streams significantly depleted), and a large increase in expenses due to unemployment claims.
2. Government lets Carrier keep more of its own money. Jobs do not go away. Government retains $8,600 per year per job in direct taxation, the addtional revenue due to the maintained economic activity, and zero unemployment expenses.
Assuming just a 20% gain from the economic activity of the wages, and $15,000 expense for unemployment per job, this translates into a 10 year net gain of $171 million, as compared to a $198 million net loss. All for a $7 million investment. I guess $370 million difference is irrelevant though because Trump.
False. It is like the SSI/FICA tax break a while ago. Rather than sending in $3000 to the Federal Government, you only sent in $2200. No money came YOUR way, less flowed out the other way. Giving the tax break in this case results in MORE revenue for the State and the Federal Government than not giving it - and letting the jobs go overseas. Better to lose 3-4 times the tax revenue AND have 1,100 more people out of work? But I get it - Trump - can't say anything good about him, right?
Actually, he didn't spend a single Federal tax dollar. Indiana gave a $7 million tax break over 10 years, so about $700 per year per job saved. Given the fact that Indiana's income tax rate is a flat 3.3%, that means it "gave up" income tax on the first $21,000 of income per job kept. My guess is that the average wages kept per employee are higher than that, so Indiana will end up with additional income tax it would not have had if the jobs went away. As well as the follow-on spending stimulus that those 1,000 jobs brought. Seems like a good thing all around.
Those who insist you cannot build in SF are really just part of the alt-right with their anti-progressive soilist views on the Earth, where not all soils are equal. They need to get a clue from the more enlightened progressives of SF.
Slashdot Mirror
We did it without telling anyone. About half of all healthcare spending comes from Governments. Another 20% is from businesses, and that is overwhelmingly regulated and required by Governments (meaning - they aren't directly spending it but forcing it to be spent). So about 30% is left for consumers. Meaning - the vast majority of healthcare spending is driven by Government. That's a socialized system.
It regulates maximum sensitivity of a passive headphone - and maximum SPL for a wireless headphone (or any headphone in wireless mode). It's only required in France right now - recommended in the rest of the EU, and ignored in the rest of the world. It also sets the max SPL at 100 dB.
Or consider it this way. Tax laws are such that it is CHEAPER TO BORROW MONEY than to repatriate the cash.
Borrowing billions of dollars at 5% costs LESS than bringing in a billion dollars.
That right there is indicative that our business tax laws are pretty messed up. The problem of having the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world - nearly double that of the OECD average - is a situation that will hopefully be resolved in the next year to the betterment of ALL US companies.
Well, to be accurate, the debt of $50 billion is about 18 months of profit, at Q4 2016's $9 billion in earnings rate. When paying back loans, it's earnings that matter, not revenue. Unless you want to stiff suppliers and employees and such...
The word you're looking for is embiggen. It is a perfectly cromulent word.
You're just reading the news release wrong.
Hey, we're not supposed to talk about the homeless until the afternoon of January 20th, 2017.
So much for the judging by the content of the character, you'd rather stick to the color of the skin... Typical leftist.
You just claimed only white, straight men supported Trump. I guess Ben Carson, Nikki Haley, and Milo Yiannopoulos don't exist in your world.
The facts are with him, not you...
Well, it was FDR who interned hundreds of thousands, it was Truman who dropped atomic bombs, so...
Unfortunately, true. Also interesting to note that journalism as a whole is sexist (many more males than females), racist (declining and way under-representative of minorities), and opposed to equal pay for equal work. So while they tend to champion such things as equality for all in theory - they really don't carry through in actions.
That's a rather racist, sexist, heterophobic thing to say. Stereotype much?
Cool, so we can say more than 1,100 jobs were saved with the maintaining and expanding of the Carrier factory in Indiana as well, then! So now we can say that Trump has already saved 6,800 jobs (using the same ratio of direct-to-indirect jobs saved as for the GM calculation). So around $100 per year per job saved - that's a massive return on investment!
Again - it's the participation RATE. That's a percentage. I know it's hard to understand - but if there are 100 workers, and 90 have jobs, then the unemployment rate is 10%. If we add 20 more people to the mix, and still have 90 jobs, we have a 25% unemployment rate. If 20 of the 30 that were unemployed are now off of unemployment, and we still have 90 jobs, we now have an unemployment rate of 10% again - but we actually have 20 also no longer "counted". So we have 30 people without jobs, but only "officially" have 10 without jobs. That's why the labor force participation rate matters - not just the unemployment rate.
GM lost $11 billion for the US Government. Hardly a "win". And that was direct cash just given out, not a reduction in taxes paid to the State. And there were about 243,000 employees at GM at the time, not 1.5 million. You really do like lying a lot, don't you?
Which is why you want to look at the Labor Force Participation RATE - it's a percentage, not an absolute. That has steadily decreased. Fewer people are working, but those who have not completely given up (and thus are no longer considered from an unemployment rate standpoint) are finally finding jobs.
The average wage of the jobs being discussed is $35,000. That's $1,000 per year to Indiana, $5300 to the Federal SSI/FICA per year, and about $3,000 per year for Federal income tax. So a total of $9300 to various Governments in taxation on that income. What did it cost to keep those $1,100 jobs? $640 per job, per year. So here's where it comes down:
1. Jobs go away. Governments lose $9,300 per year per job in direct taxation, additional losses due to less economic activity (1,100 income streams significantly depleted), and a large increase in expenses due to unemployment claims.
2. Government lets Carrier keep more of its own money. Jobs do not go away. Government retains $8,600 per year per job in direct taxation, the addtional revenue due to the maintained economic activity, and zero unemployment expenses.
Assuming just a 20% gain from the economic activity of the wages, and $15,000 expense for unemployment per job, this translates into a 10 year net gain of $171 million, as compared to a $198 million net loss. All for a $7 million investment. I guess $370 million difference is irrelevant though because Trump.
A "tax break" is a bundle of cash.
False. It is like the SSI/FICA tax break a while ago. Rather than sending in $3000 to the Federal Government, you only sent in $2200. No money came YOUR way, less flowed out the other way. Giving the tax break in this case results in MORE revenue for the State and the Federal Government than not giving it - and letting the jobs go overseas. Better to lose 3-4 times the tax revenue AND have 1,100 more people out of work? But I get it - Trump - can't say anything good about him, right?
Actually, he didn't spend a single Federal tax dollar. Indiana gave a $7 million tax break over 10 years, so about $700 per year per job saved. Given the fact that Indiana's income tax rate is a flat 3.3%, that means it "gave up" income tax on the first $21,000 of income per job kept. My guess is that the average wages kept per employee are higher than that, so Indiana will end up with additional income tax it would not have had if the jobs went away. As well as the follow-on spending stimulus that those 1,000 jobs brought. Seems like a good thing all around.
They are 100% vegan compliant. Right down to the use of whale oil for lubrication of the buttons. Zero use of vegetable matter in the entire product!
Dude, if he did that it would cut into his blunt fund... Sheesh...
You'll find them along with the city waiver, as the politicians were, no doubt, hungry for the taxes they could get on 58 floors of high-end condos...
Nah, this was built by boomers but occupied by millennials.
Those who insist you cannot build in SF are really just part of the alt-right with their anti-progressive soilist views on the Earth, where not all soils are equal. They need to get a clue from the more enlightened progressives of SF.